In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1914
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 5
Leaf #:
00064
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 21, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

2514 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 263. could have been thus produced in the fact that the pictures, not having been taken from a single lens, would not all be taken from the same point of view. This conclusion, however, overlooks the fact that practically the images were produced from the same point of view, in the Du Cos apparatus, — the single aperture through which the lenses operate, and that it is quite immaterial whether the same point of view is obtained by the use of a single lens, or by the use of a number of lenses, for the purpose of meeting this characteristic of the claim. "'We conclude that the court below erred in sustaining the validity of the claims in controversy, and that the decree should be reversed, with costs, and with instructions to the court below to dismiss the bill/ Merits of Latham Patents. "On the other hand, the Biograph company own the Latham patent, which has been very little known except by those who have made a special study of motion picture inventions. Disregarding the other claims of this patent, I consider the first paragraph of the utmost importance, so far as the legal aspect of the question is concerned. The merits of the patent have not yet been passed on by the courts. "The main point involved covers the use of the loop between the upper sprocket of a projecting machine, or camera, and the film gate. I know of no camera or projecting machine using a film longer than 75 feet which can possibly evade the use of the loop. The claim is simple, but radical. If it is declared valid by the courts, no camera nor projecting machine crank will turn in the United States unless authorized by the Biograph Company, engaging flms longer than 75 feet. "Suits were brought against the Edison Manufacturing company by the Biograph company several days ago, for infringement of this patent. Contract With Biograph Company. "In order to guarantee protection to buyers and users of the films marketed by the Kleine Optical company, we have made1 a contract with the Biograph company covering all of these films, and in accordance with its terms any suit